Pathfinder 2's Armor & A Preview of the Paladin!

It was a long bank holiday weekend here in the UK, and I sent most of it in the (rare) sun eating BBQ; there were two big Pathfinder 2 blog posts which went up in the meantime. The first dealt with armour and shields; the other was our first look at the new Paladin class!

​

• Armor now affects Touch AC; each has a different bonus for AD and TAC.
  • Studded leather +2 AC, +0 TAC
  • Chain shirt +2 AC, +1 TAC, noisy
• Armor has traits, such as "noisy".
• Armor has a Dex mod cap to AC, penalties to STR/Dex/Con skill checks, a Speed penalty, and a Bulk value.
• Potency Runes -- Items can be enhanced with potency runes.
  • Bonuses to attack rolls, increase on number of damage dice (weapons)
  • Bonus to AC, TAC, and saving throws (armor)
  • Example studded leather with +3 armor potency rune gives +5 AC, +3 TAC, and +3 to your saves.
  • Potency runes can be upgraded.
• Shields -- requires an action to use and gain an AC and TAC bonus for one round.
• Other gear -- gear has quality levels (poor -2, expert +1, master +2)
• Interact -- this is a new action, used for grabbing objects, opening doors, drawing weapons, etc.

​

• Paladins! Apparently the most contentious class.
• Core rules have lawful good paladins only (others may appear in other products)
• Paladin's Code -- paladins must follow their code, or lose their Spell Point pool and righteous ally class feature.
• Oaths are feats and include Fiendsbane Oath (constant damage to fiends, block their dimensional travel)
• Class features and feats --
  • Retributive strike (1st level) -- counterattacks and enfeebles a foe
  • Lay on hands (1st level) -- single action healing spell which also gives a one-round AC bonus
  • Divine Grace (2nd level) -- saving throw boost
  • Righteous ally (3rd level) -- house a holy spirit in a weapon or steed
  • Aura of Courage (4th level) -- reduce the frightened condition
  • Attack of Opportunity (6th level) -- presumably the basic AoO action
  • Second Ally (8th level) -- gain a second righteous ally
  • Aura of Righteousness (14th level) -- resist evil damage
  • Hero's defiance (19th level) -- keep standing at 0 HP
• Litanies -- single action spells, verbal, last one round.
  • Litany of righteousness -- weakens enemy to your allies' attacks
  • Litany against sloth -- slows the enemy, costing reactions or actions

[FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT]​

 

[Ancalagon]

Why not have the cake and eat it too? Why not have two classes, one your purported crusader tailor made to support hundreds of snowflake holy warriors that fit one super specific domain/deity each and one single paladin class that embodies the paladin with all trapping (Lawful Good only, code of conduct, one evil act and you fall perhaps forever) ?

In 5e, the solution would be having a divine subclass to the fighter, a bit like the eldrich knight.

 

[Ancalagon]

Really, for the core rules, the only armors should be:

• fabric (padded gambeson, or heavy leather jacket)
• leather (boiled hard leather as lamellar tunic or solid cuirass)
• chain (tunic)
• scale (as ‘fish scale’ tunic, solid brigandine cuirass, banded segmentata, or reallife plate+mail being small metal strips linked to each other by metal rings)
• plate (cuirass)

Distinguish between torso armor only versus a full ‘suit’ that covers limbs as well.

All other kinds of armor should be on a separate list as variant options.



Make a naked person have 8 AC.

Then make a helmet add +2 AC for a base 10 AC.

So it is always useful to have a helmet in combat, and an armorless head is vulnerable.



Remove silly armor types, like ‘studded leather’. In reallife this is ‘brigandine’ armor, and is a specific kind of metal scale armor. Also remove ring armor (this is chain).



I like how D&D 3e makes wearing the torso armor alone, one weight category lighter, so a chain tunic is light armor, and a plate cuirass (breastplate) is medium armor. I hope PF2 does too.

Chain tunic and plate cuirass are iconic, so they deserve being mechanically better by being effective while also being lighter.

I agree that a number of the armors are wrong. And a good gambeson could provide very good protection.

However, I believe that there was ring armor....

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Isn't that sort of adding insult to injury, not only must paladins be LG, but they must also be rules-lawyers as well?

Due to his/her paladinhood (and high charisma), the universe (and law) will automatically bend to make the paladin always right. It is like you have never watched a single episode of the 1966 Batman TV series (binge watching it is clearly a requirement for anyone who wants to play a paladin, DM a paladin, or be in a party with one).

 

[Sunseeker]

Due to his/her paladinhood (and high charisma), the universe (and law) will automatically bend to make the paladin always right. It is like you have never watched a single episode of the 1966 Batman TV series (binge watching it is clearly a requirement for anyone who wants to play a paladin, DM a paladin, or be in a party with one).

This really doesn't help with the fact that I've played 2/4 of my paladins like Adam West.

 

[Gammadoodler]

"Lawful" means something quite different in English-language legal parlance than it does in D&D. It may not be a crime to carry out the sentence*, but is it in accordance with the ideals on which the law rests and the purposes it serves? I think not. The whole scenario is predicated on a failure of the law to accurately determine guilt and innocence. A person sworn to uphold the law, whether an American lawyer or a Waterdhavian paladin, surely ought to do everything in their power to correct the error, not perpetuate it.

*And if, e.g., a prosecutor has evidence establishing that a defendant is innocent but withholds the evidence and prosecutes them anyway, then of course that is a crime.

I think I'd disagree with your contention that "lawful" means differing things in these differing contexts. Laws have, after all, existed for a very long time in human history (we have recorded laws from ancient Babylon) and have consistently been created, recorded and enforced for the same reasons, to define a set of acceptable behaviors for society. Presumably, the creators of those laws believe that, by forming this structure (whatever it is), they are improving society at large by outlawing 'bad' behavior. Even in a D&D world, it seems unlikely that laws would exist for any other reason. By extension, it seems that "lawfulness" would entail a respect for the benefits to society of adherence to those laws and the need for punishment of infractions of those laws.

There is nothing inconsistent with Mellored's example. A "lawful" character can very reasonably conclude that the value of the message to society that "those found guilty will be punished" outweighs damage done by inappropriate punishment of the innocent.

Your additional argument seems to include an assumption that the laws include 'justice' as an ideal upon which they rest and/or purpose which they serve. This is hardly a safe assumption. Slavery has been legal in a greater part of human history than it's been illegal. Womens' suffrage is only barely 100 years old in some of the earliest adopting countries. And this is 'real life' in 'modern' culture. Is there any argument that these laws had a justifiable underlying ideal or purpose? Is there any reason to believe that similarly abusive laws wouldn't exist in pseudo-medieval D&D fantasyland?

(Note: all of this ignores the many differing and conflicting ways in which 'good' can be interpreted)

 

[Yaarel]

I agree that a number of the armors are wrong. And a good gambeson could provide very good protection.

However, I believe that there was ring armor....

The socalled ‘ring armor’ is inferior scale armor, made in a location where metal is scarce.

 

[Ancalagon]

The socalled ‘ring armor’ is inferior scale armor, made in a location where metal is scarce.

And shouldn't there be a place in the rules for inferior armor?

 

[MoonSong]

I’m with you Song, but classically, the Paladin features are a snap on to a knight foundation, differentiated by their alignment. Knights have a code of honor/chivalry but the Paladin also has the church which adds the lawful good requirement. It’s only because the game has a polytheistic bent and socially accepts churches of other alignments that the broad interpretation of paladins can exist.

Personally, I’d call them something else that evokes imagery appropriate to their faith.

I think it is less about devotion and more about virtue.

If not the holy part or religious champion... what makes a paladin different from a fighter?

I mean, you could just add an oath option to the fighter...
Paladin's Oath: (Prerequisit fighter, Lawful Good), you swear an oath to uphold the good and righteous, and you gain a +X bonus. If you ever perform an evil act, you lose this bonus.

Edit: that actually makes it more historically accurate as well.

That still doesn't answer the question.

What makes a paladin different from just a fighter who swearth an oath to some ideal/god/code/ect...
Also, why can't a wizards, rogues, or bard swear the same oath?


IMO, just make all the oaths into feats. Let anyone take them.

Oath of the Paladin: Lawful Good
Oath of the Blackguard: Chaotic Evil
Oath of the Bushido: Lawful Neutral
Oath of the Pacifist: Neutral Good
Oath of Nocticula: Chaotic Neutral
ect...

Virtue, conviction to do good and keep order. A paladin is both optimistic and idealistic, virtuous and uncompromising. Save everybody even if it is impossible. Be a champion of good and justice. Between Rolando and El Cid there's a world of difference. El Cid was pragmatic, and cynical. He would never be what you call a paladin, even if he himself was considered a defender of the faith. Deities are orthogonal to paladins, some paladins will be defenders of faith, but only the faith of the lawful good gods. Evil and chaotic deities will have their own holy champions, but they won't be paladins, because a paladin is always striving for the greater good without compromising the order that makes life bearable. Rescue and save everybody so they can live, not just survive.

A fighter is someone who fights...

A sound, relatively objective observation. I would like to expand on that, as I think that the amount of different things a paladin must adhere to is also under controversy. For example, I think that the paladin adhering to his alignment, his deity's philosophies, his deity's anathema, and a universal code of conduct on top of it all, with only the deity being somewhat of a choice - is overkill and unstable when one error while consulting your (basically paizo's-) apparently universal judgment could cost you your class features.

(EDIT: another controversial point waiting to happen: how do you prioritize those different categories of restrictions? In the event of hypothetical conflict, Is the code of conduct more or less important than your deity's anathema? And to what extent? )

The current paladin prioritizes good over law, but I think you should be able to make more choices of what's the most important to your own order of paladins, like have the right to rank your code of conduct for yourself (but must stay consistent to your own hierarchy), or have the option(heck - even an optional rule!) to deviate from at least one of these restrictions (alignment/deity/CoC) without being judged as "not a paladin".

That being said, some others here prefer that the paladin had more things to commit to, some people thrive creatively on limitation, though I really don't see why that template of limitations couldn't fit within a bigger net of options.

Finally, to say that ALL paladins adhere to this code of conduct, (or even all LG paladins do) in that very order of priorities is naive and absurd. Even if you are restricted to being Lawful and good, even if it is "just for the playtest", there are some people who are Lawful first and Good second, and not just vice versa ("GL" ) which is what this code of conduct is geared at. Paizo's hierarchy of tenets is for GL paladins, which is even more specific than your normal Lawful good because it's specifically the belief that good always trumps law. To paizo's credit, they're on to something when they say that some tenets can be more important than others, but what do they care so much about how my specific paladin at the table prioritizes those rules?

our GL paladins follow their given alignment. CoC dictates our biggest priorities are so and so, in this order, uniformly, unfailingly, and universally, as paladins. Our deities tell us even more things we must never, ever do. One false move on any of these fronts will cost these paladins big. Even if the designers are trying to avoid moral dilemmas that ruin the Paladin's day, the misjudgments of their efforts will likely result in them making it exceptionally difficult for themselves, and for everyone else to adhere to all of it, and all the easier to put together new or additional moral dilemmas that conflict between those types of restrictions. the more limitations they put in, that stack on each other like crude patchwork, the more holes consumers are bound to find within it. Players and GMs alike are going to find the holes in that complex patchwork of paladin rules, and strike the chink in the paladins' Legendary armor where it hurts them most.

I don't know, a paladin that compromises good doesn't sound like a paladin. But you are right, paladins shouldn't have to be shackled by so many burdens, which is why I don't think they should serve deities at all. (I blame the Realms for that one actually)

Amen. I never understood the POV that Paladins are bound by this tight code since they are so devout, but the Priests who channel the deities power to do miracles has a lot more leeway. Personally I like the LG only Paladin, I just never understood why the clerics were viewed as halfassed faith-wise by comparison.

Because paladins are empowered by Good itself, not a capricious deity.

Even if it was unintentionally so, and even if you're not against the paladin being exclusively LG, I thank you for illustrating my point in my previous post, that I'm not the only one with controversy over how many different things a paladin must adhere to with full devotion. Having you Compare it to my earlier point about clerics following less rules than paladins not only strengthens that point, but shows me that I'm consistent with my opinions on the matter. Thank you.

Like I said, this sounds more like a point in favor of a split than one against it. All it proves is that a single class is too little design space to cover both the LG Paladin and the Divine Champion of any random deity.

There is nothing inconsistent with Mellored's example. A "lawful" character can very reasonably conclude that the value of the message to society that "those found guilty will be punished" outweighs damage done by inappropriate punishment of the innocent.

Even if you don't care about justice, a purely lawful person wouldn't want to punish someone who didn't break the law and was convicted wrongly. Of course you might want to just be done with it and send a message, but that would be shortsighted. Execute enough people wrongly convicted and the people will stop having the incentives to follow the law. If someone who did nothing wrong doesn't benefit from the law, then there is no point in following the law. That is how revolts and revolutions are started.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Why wouldn't a capricious deity have tight behavior codes?

 

[Gammadoodler]

If the paladin in the game is meant to emulate the archetype found in idealised and romanticised histories and stories of knighthood, then certain contemporary ideals and practices need to be excluded.

For instance, issues of efficiency and expedience are very important in most contemporary contexts. And practices or requirements that are pointless tend to be rejected or reformed. But this is not consistent with the ideals of paladinhood. Honour, thruthfulness and forthrightness are paladin ideals, not expedience. (I therefore think it's a mistake to take the prohibition on poison use out of a paldin's code. Poisons are expedient, but dishonourable.)

Likewise I don't think paladins are law-reformers. The whole idea of law reform is a contemporary one. A paladin who thinks that a purported legal requirement is abhorrent or unjust is going to try and show that it is not really a legal requirement. Or if the concern is that applying the law in this particular instance would be unjust, the paladin will present an argument as to why it ought not to be applied.

In LotR, Aragorn remits the death penalty against Beregond for valour, and because he acted out of love - and the sentence of exile is also the bestowal of an honourable office newly created.

In @mellored's example of the orphan who inadvertantly enters the forbidden area of the palace, the paladin might take the child before the queen and seek (or even just expect) mercy to be granted. Depending on the tone of the game, maybe mercy is granted by way of the child instead being ordered to enter the queen's service. (Again, depending on tone, if the orphan is a boy this might mean entering the queen's servicd as a eunuch.) Or, if the paladin has authority to enter the forbidden area, maybe the paladin facilitates the grant of mercy by taking the child into his/her service - thus rendering the child no longer a forbidden person.

I think honouring the law - which includes treating the law in a way that renders it worthy of being honoured - is in keeping with a conception of paladinhood in a way that wriggling through loopholes and reforming the law is not.

Honestly uncertain what all you're advocating since there have been a few different threads. Are you saying that a paladin should represent the romantic noble knight? Are you saying that the "romantic noble knight" would have a lawful good alignment? You start your post with "if" so it's hard to say whether that is something you'd agree with.

As it relates to the interactions of paladins (presumably LG romantic noble knights) with the law, there are a couple of issues with the points you bring up.

1. Law reform as a contemporary idea, how contemporary? The Magna Carta was signed in the 13th century as a way to make peace between the crown and various nobles by establishing certain legal protections for the nobility and limitations on the power of the crown. Not sure how contemporary we're willing to consider the 13th century. Those nobles probably aren't equivalent to "romantic noble knights", but some of them might not be that far off either.

2. Use of Aragorn as an example of "how a paladin deals with the law" is kinda silly for a couple reasons. First, Aragorn is a ranger, right? He has no real affiliation that I can recall with any particular god, and I feel like I remember Aragorn and the fellowship hiding and/or running away..like a lot. Second, and this is really more important..in the fiction, he is the rightful king by blood, he wields the sword that was broken..yadda yadda yadda. The great thing about being the king..you make the laws. Not really a lot of conflict for him there since he didn't really have anyone to answer to. If he did, we'd probably be calling him Chaotic Good.

As it relates to possible scenarios for how a paladin might respond to @mellored's revised conundrum, sure, those are all possible approaches, but they don't really address the question. If mercy isn't granted, and the orphan is sentenced to die by the paladin's hand, what does the paladin do? (BTW, if this kid did somehow wander in, my guess is that there are some guards that for sure need some discipline)

There are also other scenarios that don't even have a judicial component, just lawful orders with questionable moral value. For example:

If a city has been plagued by a contagious incurable disease and the rulers determined that all those who have contracted the disease shall be quarantined/imprisoned/executed for the sake of the remaining healthy population.

If a noble from a neighboring country offends the paladin's king (or high cleric or something) and the paladin is then commanded to attack and raze a village from that neighboring country.